On 2020-03-03 18:40, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
Hi Drew,
Le 02/03/2020 à 17:33, Drew Parsons a écrit :
Like you, I would keep h5py_serial and h5py_mpi separate rather than
submodules of h5py. Mostly because the h5py folks could in the future
want to use those two names and do it in an incompatible manner.
Fair enough, I'll keep them separate. (actually, I'll file an Issue
upstream and let them know what we've done. They may want to adapt for
themselves).
Actually, it may be wise to choose names that
a) are clearly private, so people know they should not start using
explicitly h5py_serial or h5py_mpi;
b) will not clash with anything upstream may adopt in the future, a
bit like choosing a debian-specific soname for shared library.
why not _debian_h5py_serial and _debian_h5py_mpi?
Actually I was thinking people could start using h5py_serial or
h5py_mpi, then they'd be sure of exactly what they're getting.
But I can see your point. It wouldn't be so portable if users started
doing that.
If we want to present it as _debian*, then I think it would be tidier to
place these _debian dir underneath h5py. That layout could be even
better for upstream since they'd want to do likewise (_h5py_serial,
_h5py_mpi under h5py), if they take up this suggestion.
Drew
